1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, except for the dismissal of the part concerning the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance and the defendant, or addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion emphasized in the court of first instance, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance

The third third part of the judgment of the first instance shall be " April 2, 2012" to " April 12, 2012."

The 11st 7th 7th tier of the judgment of the first instance is " May 30, 2012" to " May 31, 2012."

The 11st 10th malth "marth" of the judgment of the first instance shall be regarded as "marry point".

The part of "70 million won" in the 11th 15th thm of the judgment of the first instance is "70 million won (the monthly rent shall be KRW 20 million to KRW 18 billion)", and the part of "1.2 billion" in the last reduction is "1.2 billion (the monthly rent shall be KRW 18 billion to KRW 14 billion)".

The third 6th th th th th th th th th th st of the judgment of the first th th st st is " between the defendant B and D".

2. Additional determination

A. In the Plaintiff’s argument at the trial, the Plaintiff asserts that “In the process of concluding the instant sales contract and completing the principal registration of this case, as long as B assessed the value of each real estate of this case at a lower level and redeemed the Defendant’s obligation to deduct the purchase price from the sales price, the instant sales contract and the instant registration constitute a fraudulent act separate from the instant sales promise and the instant provisional registration.”

B. (1) Determination 1) A) A related legal doctrine should arise prior to an act that can, in principle, be viewed as a fraudulent act, prior to the occurrence of a claim protected by obligee’s right of revocation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da37001, Apr. 26, 2013). In cases where a principal registration has been completed on the basis of a provisional registration, unless the juristic act which is the cause of a provisional registration and the juristic act which is the cause of a principal registration are clearly different, whether the requirements for a fraudulent act are satisfied shall be determined at the time of the juristic act